should pure functions accept/deal with shared data?

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 08-06-2012 09:00, dennis luehring wrote:
>>>> >>We clearly agree completely; this is exactly what I'm saying in
>>>> the paragraph you
>>>> >>quoted below. What i'm*also* saying is that the 'incorrectness' of
>>>> it is harmless
>>>> >>in practice - so I'm not sure that it should be forbidden, and
>>>> handled specially
>>>> >>(which would be necessary in the inferred-purity cases).
>
> but it makes no sense to cripple an feature like pure half-way - pure is
> clean and well defined (still not perfect) - but you talking about
> making it very stupid and sensless "'incorrectness' of it is harmless
> in practice" ... "Yes, they can be used incorrectly, but I'd expect
> anybody working with shared to know what they're doing" - no they don't
> - sorry, haven't you any real experience in the threading world or why
> don't you see the problems introdcing shared in pure

Without taking either side, I'm just gonna point out that this post is 
very incomprehensible and doesn't seem to bring any actual argument to 
the table.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex at lycus.org
http://lycus.org